On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 20:48 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Irq0 may _exist_. IO Port 0 may _exist_. Virtual address 0 may
> _exist_.
>
> Got it?
>
> But they ARE NOT VALID THINGS FOR DRIVERS TO WORRY ABOUT.
I do understand what you're saying; there's no need to shout. I think
it's very misguided and leads to both internal inconsistency (as
demonstrated by the setup_irq() patch) and external inconsistency with
stuff like hardware documentation. But I _do_ understand what you're
saying.
> When a *DRIVER* sees a [zero], it's always a sign of "not here".
Except when it isn't. Like when it's a DMA address. Or a file
descriptor. Or a CPU number. Or one of numerous other things.
But still, I do understand what you're saying although I disagree with
your intention and your statement above is plain wrong (well, at least
my misquote of it is wrong -- you actually said 'NULL' which is fair
enough, but in the middle of a rant about _zero_ so I edited the quote
to say zero because that's what we're actually talking about).
> But they ARE NOT VALID THINGS FOR DRIVERS TO WORRY ABOUT.
...
> NO NORMAL USER SHOULD EVER SEE [zero] AS A REAL IO PORT.
Yes, that much I understand. We disagree, but I understand you. My last
response was not intending to pursue that part of the discussion.
My question was about _how_ you think this should be achieved in this
particular case. You didn't like the suggestion that we should put your
new special-case hack into the resource code... where/how _do_ you
suggest that it's done, so that we can protect those poor driver authors
from the number zero?
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
